The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
But in the OP's example, the OP clearly stated no medical conditions.
Rather than conflate things, let's all just assume that every aspect of Persons A and B is the same...height, weight, hormones, body composition, caloric intake, macro breakdown, etc.
The ONLY difference is whether or not the food is "clean."
They can't be different genders, then.
I must have missed the part where it was suggested that they were different genders. The question is regarding clean vs. unclean food. Gender should have nothing to do with it.
ndj threw a new scenario at us, everything else the same (including lack of medical conditions, even if it was implied, not stated), but with a 200 lb male and 160 lb female. Same deficit of 500 cals.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Just for fun and giggles..
I would even be willing to change the example.
Person A is a male 35 years old 200 pounds
Person B is a feamale 30 years old and say 160 pounds
they both eat a 500 calorie deficit and strength train four days a week.
Person A = clean eating
Person B = IIFYM
who loses more weight..
I still go with C - both of them lose about the same ...
I suppose if you're specifying the deficit is exactly the same then of course they lose the same.
but what about the hormones in females?
that's often legit. it's an approved (recommended!) treatment for PCOS, for example.
But PCOS is a medical condition, and I assume both our hypothetical people are still free of these. @ndj1979?
as Pu_239 pointed out, people don't always know they have it. PCOS is a syndrome, lots of variance in how the symptoms show up
It's a hypothetical. You're changing the hypothetical based on an assumption you might make about a hypothetical situation?
We've been shifting in and out of generalities and two different hypothetical situations.
In reality, people are commonly mis- or underdiagnosed for a schwack of reasons. But ok sure, let's say these doctors and their labs did the exclusions perfectly, I'm fine with that.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.0
-
But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.
Actually that's not the case, there was a study done on people with insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance. Their BMR was calculated through respiratory methods(had a few drinks can't recall the name of it at the moment). They where put on a 400 calorie deficit. The results varied based on diet, some did high carb some did low carb.
There might be small differences in weightloss when factoring in different macros, because different macros have different thermogenic effects while being digested (some require more calories to digest than others, some contain more indigestible fiber than others.) That still doesn't address clean vs. unclean.0 -
But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.
Actually that's not the case, there was a study done on people with insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance. Their BMR was calculated through respiratory methods(had a few drinks can't recall the name of it at the moment). They where put on a 400 calorie deficit. The results varied based on diet, some did high carb some did low carb.
What does insulin have to do with it? If their BMR was calculated, then that has taken any medical conditions in to account. So, the 400 calorie deficit has already included any potential adjustments relating to insulin sensitivity/resistance.
I still argue that there is no difference. Maybe high carb/low carb can produce differences in the CO part of the equation, but if those have already been taken in to account, and the high carbers are eating at a 500 calorie deficit (taking in to account medical conditions, macros etc), and the low carbers are also eating at a 500 calorie deficit (again, taking the same things in to account), then the would lose the same weight.
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that various medical conditions, macro content of foods, etc have an effect on rates of weight loss. However, they are all part of the many, many factors that make up the calories out portion of the CICO equation.0 -
Its CICO. Period.
Different diets with different macros can affect satiety, ease of adherence, NEAT, etc, but its all CICO. I am too lazy to find it know, but I believe all controlled ward studies (ie not self-reported but food/exercise strictly controlled) showed no significant difference.
Clean eating is for all intents and purposes myth with regards to weight loss. Body recomp is different.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.
Actually that's not the case, there was a study done on people with insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance. Their BMR was calculated through respiratory methods(had a few drinks can't recall the name of it at the moment). They where put on a 400 calorie deficit. The results varied based on diet, some did high carb some did low carb.
There might be small differences in weightloss when factoring in different macros, because different macros have different thermogenic effects while being digested (some require more calories to digest than others, some contain more indigestible fiber than others.) That still doesn't address clean vs. unclean.
I believe they got half of the insulin sensitive people and put them on a high carb diet, and put the other half on a low carb diet, same wsa true for the insulin resistance people. The insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diet, the insulin resistance people lost more on low carb diet. The insulin sensitive people lost more weight on the high carb diet. As already mentioned the calorie deficit was 400 calories per person.
Yet again, it had nothing to do with clean vs. unclean, which is the subject of the thread ....0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »But, if we're assuming each have a 500 calories DEFICIT, then all medical conditions, hormones, etc have already been taken in to account as they are part of the CO bit of the CICO equation.
Actually that's not the case, there was a study done on people with insulin sensitivity and insulin resistance. Their BMR was calculated through respiratory methods(had a few drinks can't recall the name of it at the moment). They where put on a 400 calorie deficit. The results varied based on diet, some did high carb some did low carb.
There might be small differences in weightloss when factoring in different macros, because different macros have different thermogenic effects while being digested (some require more calories to digest than others, some contain more indigestible fiber than others.) That still doesn't address clean vs. unclean.
I believe they got half of the insulin sensitive people and put them on a high carb diet, and put the other half on a low carb diet, same wsa true for the insulin resistance people. The insulin sensitive people lost more weight on a high carb diet, the insulin resistance people lost more on low carb diet. The insulin sensitive people lost more weight on the high carb diet. As already mentioned the calorie deficit was 400 calories per person.
Yet again, it had nothing to do with clean vs. unclean, which is the subject of the thread ....
What is unclean eating? processed foods, usually high in sugar/carbs. hence the high carb group.
Yeah it's not been defined I don't think. My knee-jerk definition of clean eating is "whole grains, lean meats, veg, healthy fats, nuts", would include dairy and fruits and higher-carb veg, some might not.0 -
Its CICO. Period.
Different diets with different macros can affect satiety, ease of adherence, NEAT, etc, but its all CICO. I am too lazy to find it know, but I believe all controlled ward studies (ie not self-reported but food/exercise strictly controlled) showed no significant difference.
Clean eating is for all intents and purposes myth with regards to weight loss. Body recomp is different.
Sure it's CICO. Bolded are all aspects of CICO that matter hugely for any given individual, though.0 -
Hi Guys, sorry if I missed this being mentioned in the slew of acronyms but, from my understanding, the reason why 'clean' eating tends to result in better results than 'processed' eating is to do with how the food is metabolised.
Exhibit A - Raw carrot - 120cal (clean example)
Exhibit B - Cooked and mashed carrot - 120cal (processed example)
Person eats raw carrot. Digesting raw carrot burns 25cal.
Person eats cooked and mashed carrot. Digesting burns10cal.
Actual calories entering the system for A is 95cal.
Actual calories entering the system for B is 110cal.
Therefore, on a diet of raw carrots a person would loose weight faster than if they ate cooked and mashed carrot.
I have no idea what exactly the differences are between digesting one over the other are only that a processed food is easier and quicker to digest while the raw requires more activity to burn and is more likely to pass through undigested (corn vs pop corn anyone?).
It really has nothing to do with toxins and warm and fuzzies. This is also the basis of the Atkins diet funnily enough. Meat takes alot more calories to digest than a carrot.
HOWEVER, in my opinion, if you are on a CICO diet with processed food which is resulting in weight loss and you are able to stick to it I say go for it. Its better to do something slow and steady and stick to it then go too hard and not be able to see it through.
If you want to get healthy though, that's another story
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
People who eat 'some' processed food can be healthy for sure. People who eat only highly processed foods will likely be missing out on essential nutrients and probably taking in alot of things in higher quantities than they should like salts and fats.
Its a different story because weightloss and health are not synonymous. Maybe my last sentence is a double negative. I meant that if you want to get healthy you need to eat healthy not just a cal deficit.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm confused... Cooking and mashing carrots now makes them processed? Unclean? I've never, in any definition of the ever-changing goal post of "clean, " seen a requirement that veggies be raw. Cooking is allowed on every definition I've seen.
0 -
The person who eats clean food will lose weight quicker. Because the body digests natural food easier and gets rid of it easier. Constipation makes you gain weight too and you can't have that problem when eating carrots
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »I lose much more weight on a diet that includes processed foods because I will actually keep to that diet. I'm having a lot of success eating what I'm used to eating.
If I tried to eat "clean" 100% of the time I would give up completely, go back to my old way of eating, and then just keep slowly gaining weight. I think that many of the people pushing "clean" diets are perfectly happy eating that way.
If you are eating a diet that satisfies you, you are much more likely to have success with it. "Clean" eaters may actually lose more weight if they comply with their diet more consistently when they eat that way than they do otherwise.
Whatever is most comfortable for the individual is what is most likely to work long-term.
This. Find what you buy into and what enables you to eat a variety, get the macros/micros you need and the right calorie deficit, and that you most easily can follow long-term.
If that isn't true, it doesn't matter one iota if there is some small advantage to one eating plan or another. And, any advantage is frankly speculative at this point with the bulk of studies pointing to the dodo effect with diet plans. People lose the same amount, regain the same amount, and when eating ad libitum end up pretty much consuming the same macros.
Okay - eat 1500 calories of cake - and I will eat 1500 calories of pure nutritious food (as I do now but MORE) and I will flat out not only lose fat pounds but I will retain my muscle mass over the course of one year.
I did the above - it doesn't work. DOESN'T WORK.
You can't outrun a bad diet.
The tree of "Not eliminating comfort food = only eating cake all day" Is full by now, I need to start a new list.
In before he says I only say this because I don't like him again.0 -
I'm so confused!! I'm clean eating but also calorie counting - I read endless articles online, many of them suggest when clean eating you don't need to calorie count but I can't help myself. Is this the right way to go to lose weight? xx0
-
What people should understand is that processed foods don't really fill you up that much. You end up craving more and more and thus go over the calorie limits. Sure you can watch your portions with them and not eat as much, but you still end up hungry whereas if you are eating healthier foods higher in nutrition especially protein and fiber you don't get hungry as quickly.0
-
danicristina2015 wrote: »The person who eats clean food will lose weight quicker. Because the body digests natural food easier and gets rid of it easier. Constipation makes you gain weight too and you can't have that problem when eating carrots
Constipation isn't weight gain, just as wearing clothes isn't weight gain.
Also I haven't seen anything that said "natural foods" digest better. In fact, someone above pretty much said your body has an easier time digesting a "processed" carrot as opposed to a raw one.0 -
danicristina2015 wrote: »The person who eats clean food will lose weight quicker. Because the body digests natural food easier and gets rid of it easier. Constipation makes you gain weight too and you can't have that problem when eating carrots
I'm not sure about that. If your body digests better, it means that you absorb better the nutrients, so you can take more energy from them. In fact, underweight people with malabsorption issues can gain weight by eating "clean".
0 -
What people should understand is that processed foods don't really fill you up that much. You end up craving more and more and thus go over the calorie limits. Sure you can watch your portions with them and not eat as much, but you still end up hungry whereas if you are eating healthier foods higher in nutrition especially protein and fiber you don't get hungry as quickly.
You got your pronouns mixed up. It's "*I* end up craving more and more and thus go over the calorie limits" and "*I* end up hungry".
Plenty of us can eat "dirty" and feel perfectly sated within our calories.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »danicristina2015 wrote: »The person who eats clean food will lose weight quicker. Because the body digests natural food easier and gets rid of it easier. Constipation makes you gain weight too and you can't have that problem when eating carrots
I'm not sure about that. If your body digests better, it means that you absorb better the nutrients, so you can take more energy from them. In fact, underweight people with malabsorption issues can gain weight by eating "clean".
Processing it makes it easier to digest.
And yes, cooking your food is processing it. I am not saying its not 'clean' just that the more processed something is (including peeling) the easier it is for your body to break down and get nutrients from.
0 -
That's why they say celery is a calorie negative food because it takes more energy to digest then is actually in it.
So by that -- eating celery can kill you, and celery is a vegetable, so eating your vegetables can KILL YOU!!!
That's it!! Telling the wife now.....NO VEGGIES!! DONE!!!
0 -
The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?0 -
What people should understand is that processed foods don't really fill you up that much. You end up craving more and more and thus go over the calorie limits. Sure you can watch your portions with them and not eat as much, but you still end up hungry whereas if you are eating healthier foods higher in nutrition especially protein and fiber you don't get hungry as quickly.
You got your pronouns mixed up. It's "*I* end up craving more and more and thus go over the calorie limits" and "*I* end up hungry".
Plenty of us can eat "dirty" and feel perfectly sated within our calories.
Brilliant-I like you! And totally agree.0 -
Hi Guys, sorry if I missed this being mentioned in the slew of acronyms but, from my understanding, the reason why 'clean' eating tends to result in better results than 'processed' eating is to do with how the food is metabolised.
Exhibit A - Raw carrot - 120cal (clean example)
Exhibit B - Cooked and mashed carrot - 120cal (processed example)
Person eats raw carrot. Digesting raw carrot burns 25cal.
Person eats cooked and mashed carrot. Digesting burns10cal.
Actual calories entering the system for A is 95cal.
Actual calories entering the system for B is 110cal.
Therefore, on a diet of raw carrots a person would loose weight faster than if they ate cooked and mashed carrot.
I have no idea what exactly the differences are between digesting one over the other are only that a processed food is easier and quicker to digest while the raw requires more activity to burn and is more likely to pass through undigested (corn vs pop corn anyone?).
It really has nothing to do with toxins and warm and fuzzies. This is also the basis of the Atkins diet funnily enough. Meat takes alot more calories to digest than a carrot.
HOWEVER, in my opinion, if you are on a CICO diet with processed food which is resulting in weight loss and you are able to stick to it I say go for it. Its better to do something slow and steady and stick to it then go too hard and not be able to see it through.
If you want to get healthy though, that's another story
The differences in TEF are pretty much negligible.0 -
That's why they say celery is a calorie negative food because it takes more energy to digest then is actually in it.
So by that -- eating celery can kill you, and celery is a vegetable, so eating your vegetables can KILL YOU!!!
That's it!! Telling the wife now.....NO VEGGIES!! DONE!!!
It's a myth. Your body doesn't take that much energy to digest food.0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »The thing is not even the 'Clean eating' people can decide what eating clean actually is. I see many so called clean eaters eating cheese, protein powders and many other things that are the definition of processed in my mind.
This argument like many on MFP is just a fallacy because as normal it's one or the other. I eat a lot of foods the clean eaters would see as clean but hey I also sometimes eat 'non clean' foods. Why does it need to be one or the other? It's this obsession about putting labels on everything. Why do you have to be 'paleo', 'clean' or anything else why not just say I eat foods I like that fit in with my goals/lifestyle?
To my understanding, eating "clean" means eating (mainly) unprocessed or minimally processed food.
But you can eat a "clean" paleo diet, a "clean" vegetarian diet, a "clean" macrobiotic diet a "clean" vegan diet, a "clean" Mediterranean diet and so on.
That's why, in my opinion, the label "clean", alone, is meaningless.
A different issue is how much "strict" you allow yourself to eat. You can aim to eat a 100% "clean" diet, or you can adopt a more loose approach (for instance, an 80/20 approach).
But why to search for "fallacies" on others' way of eating?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions